21–30 of 117 posts
I'm skeptical of the claim of improved security. Theoretically, if there were some horrible bugs in the JIT, one could craft malicious input data causing the JIT to insert arbitrary code in the code heap. In practice, it doesn't seem possible. At least HotSpot has been JIT:ing code for decades and no one has been able to find such an exploit.
I'm skeptical of the claim of improved security. Theoretically, if there were some horrible bugs in the JIT, one could craft malicious input data causing the JIT to insert arbitrary code in the code heap. In practice, it doesn't seem possible. At least HotSpot has been JIT:ing code for decades and no one has been able to find such an exploit.
I'm skeptical of the claim of improved security. Theoretically, if there were some horrible bugs in the JIT, one could craft malicious input data causing the JIT to insert arbitrary code in the code heap. In practice, it doesn't seem possible. At least HotSpot has been JIT:ing code for decades and no one has been able to find such an exploit.
They mention Cobalt (to allow targeting playstation), react native, nativescript, pdfium, and chrome's proxy resolver.
I'm skeptical of the claim of improved security. Theoretically, if there were some horrible bugs in the JIT, one could craft malicious input data causing the JIT to insert arbitrary code in the code heap. In practice, it doesn't seem possible. At least HotSpot has been JIT:ing code for decades and no one has been able to find such an exploit.
This is very possible: just do a search for ${your favorite JIT} arbitrary code execution, and you'll almost certainly see a real-world vulnerability.
> At least HotSpot has been JIT:ing code for decades and no one has been able to find such an exploit.
Yeah, no. See for example https://www.syscan360.org/slides/2013_EN_ExploitYourJavaNati...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a software-level rule that forbids JIT engines by never allowing apps to mark pages as executable. According to this rule, you could run Chrome on iOS now. But there's also a policy level rule: > 4.7 HTML5 Games, Bots, etc. > Apps may contain or run code that is not embedded in the binary (e.g. HTML5-based games, bots, etc.), as long as [...] the software [...] only uses capabilities available in a standard W…
You could use the XCode linker to embed your JS/WASM code in the binary as a read-only resource/section, and then run it using JIT-less V8. Interpreted code is generally more compact than a native ISA like ARM64, so this could be useful in order to reduce app size.
Or just read it from a file?
I'm skeptical of the claim of improved security. Theoretically, if there were some horrible bugs in the JIT, one could craft malicious input data causing the JIT to insert arbitrary code in the code heap. In practice, it doesn't seem possible. At least HotSpot has been JIT:ing code for decades and no one has been able to find such an exploit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could use the XCode linker to embed your JS/WASM code in the binary as a read-only resource/section, and then run it using JIT-less V8. Interpreted code is generally more compact than a native ISA like ARM64, so this could be useful in order to reduce app size.
> You could use the XCode linker to embed your JS/WASM code in the binary as a read-only resource/section, and then run it using JIT-less V8. Or just read it from a file?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You could use the XCode linker to embed your JS/WASM code in the binary as a read-only resource/section, and then run it using JIT-less V8. Or just read it from a file?
It needs to be embedded in the binary, because code that is not so embedded has different rules applied to it. So, it has to be done either in the compiler (e.g. as compile-time const arrays, which will then be part of the rodata section) or in the linker; the latter is arguably a bit easier.
I'm skeptical of the claim of improved security. Theoretically, if there were some horrible bugs in the JIT, one could craft malicious input data causing the JIT to insert arbitrary code in the code heap. In practice, it doesn't seem possible. At least HotSpot has been JIT:ing code for decades and no one has been able to find such an exploit.
Tons of JITs have had exploits...
I'm skeptical of the claim of improved security. Theoretically, if there were some horrible bugs in the JIT, one could craft malicious input data causing the JIT to insert arbitrary code in the code heap. In practice, it doesn't seem possible. At least HotSpot has been JIT:ing code for decades and no one has been able to find such an exploit.